Thanks for comments about the appearance and then disappearance of a post from Anglican Information. The first thing to say is that we’re grateful for the services of Anglican Information and insight it gives. However on this occasion there was a question in my mind about whether by posting the comments about Ruth Gledhill that we had broken our ‘only two rules’ of politeness and respect. That is inevitably a subjective judgement but one I continue to think was correct.
That does not mean however that we wish to stifle the debate about the issues themselves. Accusations continue to be made about the death of Canon Rodney Hunter and its right those should be challenged. There are also reasonable questions to be raised about how his death was reported at the time. Comments on those can be found on www.thinkinganglicans.org and www.anglican-information-archive.org .
The MCU welcomes and is committed to open, informed and reasoned debate and I believe our blog, thanks to the work of Paul Bagshaw, achieves a consistently high standard.
John Plant, Chair MCU
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Dear MCU Only Connect,
I am disappointed in you - it looks suspiciously like you have been 'got at' by the Press and caved in. Free information is at the heart of democracy.
Fortunately I kept a copy of the original Anglican Information posting - it is neither defamatory nor disrespectful.
If Ruth Gledhill has committed a serious faux pas then it should be stated. At the receiving end are people who are not in a position to do anything - and who have really suffered.
I am glad that penwatch has posted because I couldn't make sense of your revised article. If you were able to post the Anglican Information news in the first place why did it suddenly become a rule breaker? Either your moderating is not up to scratch or you, as penwatch says, 'have been got at' - by a third party.
I've just received the latest Anglican Information posting which goes into more factual detail about the Ruth Gledhill story and the damage it has done to the falsely accused men and their families in Malawi.
It includes extracts from a letter that one of the families has written - the one where the man (Bernard Mlota) has died they suggest because of his imprisonment and subsequent treatment. This is investigative journalism at its best - I just hope you run it.
Your site has, up until now, been a really informative one which hasn't shied away from difficult subjects. I hope that will continue and I await with interest to see if I am published and moreover and, more importantly, if the new Anglican Information release is as well.
Dear MCU,
Thank you for the explanation. As I have said in the past, yours is an extremely informative site and I have been very interested in the postings, including the articles submitted by Anglican Information - in fact I have now asked to be on their mailing list. Although I appreciate the reasons for your removing what Ruth Gledhill obviously feels to have been impolite and disrespectful comments, I would agree with Penwatch who suggests that if the Press do make mistakes, then they should be held accountable and asked to justify their actions, particularly if they have resulted in harm being done to others.
I look forward to hearing the comments of others on this very important subject.
What larks!
I come back after three days enforced offline due to a duff ISP and find all this.
MCU withholding information, all very intriguing, ‘we do not wish to stifle the debates’ says John Plant, the Chair. Well surely that’s just what you are doing in removing a blog? What did you put it on for in the first place?
What’s going on? Aha I see it’s to do with Ms Ruth Gledhill of the Times, she who is one of the few able to quote the likes of David Virtue as an authentic impartial source.
What has she been up to now? So many questions, so off to the Anglican Info website to find – a sad account of how mistreated Malawians are innocent victims. But I don’t think that’s the mysterious article. AI are often slow at posting items on their website so it’s still not clear what’s going on.
Except remember the golden rule MCU. Don’t attempt to hide information on the web you make people like me very curious indeed and consequently you’ll lack the credibility that we want to give you as an organisation.
Hurry up somebody and put me out of my misery.
I blogged on this site at approximately 2pm saying I was disappointed in you & then got another very informative but critical of Ruth Gledhill article from Anglican Information a little later.
Normally your webmaster has got them (Anglican Information) up and running on this site within an hour or two. Not this time - what's going on - the webmaster is publishing these challenged and critical blogs but not showing us Anglican Information's criticism of Ruth Gledhill.
Who's actually monitoring this site - do I sense a little power struggle going on in the MCU, one cautious of offending Ms Gledhill and another with a bit more fire in its belly?
Why don't you just publish and be damned as you are doing your reputations no good whatsoever in withholding information? This is a newish site and was getting known as a challenging and credible one. Now you're undoing all the good work. You'll have to be a bit bolder with your material. Flip flopping to the tune of Ruth Gledhill will earn you
no friends whatsoever.
Look at the the most successful site on the religious web 'Virtue online' and take a leaf (but please not an editorial line) from their willingness to say what they think. I note that a fellow blogger 'concerned anglican' has said how much RG appreciates Virtue - now if you really want to get in with her........
Bet you don't publish this one either?
I sincerely hope that Only Connect doesn't become another Virtueonline!!
Meanwhile perhaps the media's attention should focus on the situation in the Province of Central Africa which still remains dire with further threats of excommunication for those who wish to see fair elections take place in Upper Shire and Lake Malawi.
I look forward to seeing prompt and just action being taken by the Central African Bishops on their return home from the Lambeth Conference.
I'm new to the blog so please bear with me, as they say in the call centres, if I do something silly. I've read all the comments, including John Plant's explanation, but unfortunately can't find the original offending article. I didn't read it here before it was taken down, and can't find anything on Anglican Info's website that looks particularly offensive to Ms Gledhill. I have found comments critical of her reporting, but that's not the same thing surely? Has anyone else found comments from Anglican Info that they think broke the rules of the blog - namely,lack of politeness and/or respect towards Ms Gledhill? If so I for one would like to know what they are so I can judge for myself.In the meantime, I find myself instinctively on the side of fellow bloggers who express concern that the MCU should not be intimidated by anyone (if indeed they have been) - especially not by journalists who of all people should be defending openness and free speech.
Betsy, the offending article is at http://notthesamestream.blogspot.com/2008/08/hunter-case-false-accusations-and.html.
Subsequent mailings from Anglican Information are there also.
Dear Betsy Grey,
This is a strange and unfortunate case. I've looked at it, like you, very carefully.
All the Anglican Information material is now on their web-site and there is nothing offensive there at all - indeed they are doing exactly what they claim to do be 'a voice for the voiceless'.
The root of the problem is that they have run stories pointing out that Ruth Gledhill of the Times newspaper accused two men of murder by poisoning when there was no evidence and they hadn't been charged - although they had been slapped into prison simply on the word of a suspended priest.
One of the men has now died and the other is traumatised and the relatives, quite rightly are asking difficult questions. The problem for Ruth Gledhill is that her very widely circulated story (in Malawi especially) seems to have contributed to the one man's death and the other 's incarceration by convincing everyone that they were guilty.
It look as if Ruth Gledhill is pretty desperate not to have this interpretation get out. So when it appeared on the MCU web-site it seems that, because the MCU and she were all at the Lambeth Conference together, she went round to John Plant and the others and told them to take the posting off.
RG can be pretty intimidating (I know) and it looks like John Plant caved in, pulled rank on the web-master, Paul Bagshaw and ordered what was a foolish thing to do - the removal of the article.
Hence the trouble because:
1. The article was already posted (no-one else had complained although it wasn't on for long).
2. MCU has appeared to allow itself to be intimidated by a journalist.
3. MCU (of all organisations!) is complaisant with the suppression of information - in particular information defending innocent Malawians.
4. The web-master, understandably got peeved and started a new web-site.
5. The bloggers, including me, sensed something fishy and started to complain.
Now MCU is in an invidious and embarrassing position, visible to the public online. The only one to have gained is Ruth Gledhill who has slipped off the hook. The hapless Malawians who probably barely comprehend the furore going on around them have lost a champion in MCU and all the hard work that MCU did at the Lambeth Conference could be in jeopardy.
In my opinion John Plant's explanation doesn't stand up and there is a degree of hubris emerging which won't allow him to back down.
We've heard a lot about 'Indaba' at the Lambeth Conference - MCU official need to get some indabising going quickly before this becomes a cause celebre to their great disadvantage.
Thanks to Paul for the info re offending material and to penwatch for the background. I can't comment on the circumstances you outline, penwatch, but I do find it immensely depressing if MCU has bowed to such pressure. On the plus side, I suppose there must be some merit in upsetting journalists (and I was one). By the way - a question from a new-to-blogging blogger: why the anonymity of so many bloggers? I'm sure there must be a reason but what is it? Should we not stand up and be counted?
I for one don't mean to be anonymous. I simply use my initials because it is quicker! I am happy to stand up and be counted in this debate.
Mary Peterson
Post a Comment